C . A . G . E .
Citizens Against Government Encroachment -- Citoyens Anti Gouvernement Envahissant





As highlighted by the incident below, the issue of Government intrusion into parental rights is a growing concern. C.A.G.E. is currently seeking candidates who would be willing to put together a case study examining the laws and ground facts surrounding the issue, with particular attention to unintended results of an overly large bureaucracy dictating to parents terms that go completely against the better interest of children.


The following is adapted from a May 13th memo "The Bulls of Pamplona" by Beryl Wajsmann of the Institute of Public Affairs of Montreal:

The Motherless Children

On May 13th 2006, The Montreal Gazette and the National Post blew open a story that should make everyone afraid of where our society's going. Very afraid. A Montreal couple with three children have a son with type-1 diabetes. The school board in their area could not guarantee the necessary level of care and protection and suggested home schooling. The couple both had post-graduate degrees, were active in their community and all was going well. The school board approved the curriculum; provided textbooks and all assessments were excellent both as to the care of the child and his academic progress. In fact the boy was considerably above the norm.

They had decided to home school his brother as well so that the two could develop together equally. Then bureaucrats at the school board changed. After two years, and despite glowing reports on the boys' development, the new bureaucrat in charge decided not to extend the board's co-operation. It was insisted that the boys be put into school. The parents agreed but asked for a guarantee that their diabetic son would be properly supervised. The board not only refused but had the audacity to demand a waiver of responsibility from the parents. The parents complained to the Quebec Human Rights Commission. (The hearing date has still not been set.)

The school board then called in a child-care worker. Her reports were extremely positive about the boys' schooling. But after three months, this social worker, from the English youth protection agency, was replaced by one from the French youth protection agency. The reason given by the board was that it was done at the parents' request. The parents are English. They never requested it. This social worker forced the parents to have the diabetic son examined by doctors at a hospital other than the one near his home where he had been treated successfully for years. The parents refused to change hospitals after meeting the new doctor. The doctor then wrote a letter saying the boy's test results from the other hospital were "too good to be true" and raised concerns about the parents' "attitude".

The new youth protection worker then took the parents to court asking the judge to force them to send their sons to school and to order a medical examination at the facility she had recommended. But she did state that the children should remain with the parents. The judge had other ideas. He ordered the two boys put into foster care where they have now been for months. They are in two separate homes and their parents can see them only one hour a week. The medical exams on the diabetic boy are excellent, just as his previous hospital had reported. His cognitive skills are described as in the "upper normal range".

Meanwhile the parents have no money to hire a lawyer to fight this decision in court and are still awaiting a hearing at the Quebec Human Rights Commission. They can't get their sons back until they agree to put them in school yet no school will guarantee the safety of the diabetic boy. Their parenting skills are not at issue since their third child, a girl of pre-school years, was left with them. In what is a supreme irony the Quebec government is charging them $12.80 a day for each boy for foster care and suggested in a letter that they should use their federal child care and GST allowance to pay it. Meanwhile Quebec cut their welfare payment in half. The father said, "It's a totalitarian state."

The Fault Dear Brutus...

Totalitarian state indeed. Let no one think that all the above cases of suffocating statism are for the general welfare. They are nothing more than examples of big government as big business. Quebec, with one-fifth of the population of California has three times that state's number of bureaucrats. Government knows that the more it legislates and controls, the more bureaucrats it can hire and the more power it can acquire. Rather than attacking the critical political and distributive issues that could offend vested interests, politicians engage in statocratic engineering using it as fodder for fliers in the next election. They forget about protecting and perfecting our social contract. They rape our pension plans; they pillage the insurance of the unemployed; they surrender to expediency leaving our health system to decay; they betray our most vulnerable; they sow nullification and suspicion and reap votes from division and interposition. Government has become public enemy number one and its elected and non-elected leaders the true organized criminals of our society.

With pre-meditation they seek to stifle dissent; control thought; restrict independence; limit choice and impinge on every area of our private domains. All this financed through ever-increasing taxes - 90% of which are on the backs of those earning $60,000 or less a year - raised from the very citizens without the means to hire lawyers to fight back.

In this Alice-in-Wonderland culture it is truly "sentence first, trial after" Black is white and white is black. Under a myriad number of names from "accountability" to "politesse" to "normalization" to "protection" to "correctness", the state's squid-like tentacles slither to choke the spirit and vitality out of us all in order to perpetuate its own growth and control. Political Stalinism may have fallen in eastern Europe but its social proto-Pavlovian legacy is alive and well right here. The rule of reason has been replaced by the cloud of coercion. There is a word for this. That word is treason. Treason defined in the only manner it really matters. A violation of the allegiance owed by a person to his or her own country by aiding an enemy. In our case that enemy is the totalitarian statism imposed on us all. The politicians and bureaucrats who enforce its policies, or blithely make up their own as they go along, violate the allegiance that governors owe to the governed.

Yet we the people are not without blame. Our rulers get away with their treasons because so many of us have surrendered to the sovereignty of self-abnegation. We have become a people plagued by a self-doubt driven by a jealousy of others' self-belief. And in the process have created a self-imposed tyranny that mutes individual integrity and conscience and trades them for the false security demanded by state-sponsored bureaucratic scrutiny.

Thomas Jefferson once declared that, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed regularly with the blood of patriots." Our tree is now dangerously parched.